11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIt wasn't 'evolutionists' plural, it was a single person who came up with that theory. It will stand till someone refutes it in a journal with bioscience, not creationist bullshyte.
You have no proof that iron in a body can preserve soft tissue for millions of years. So it is just your belief and your evolutionists lies against most other people that have common sense and believe the truth. 😏
The Near Genius
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIf one can make a theory and it stands until some one refutes in a jouranal with bioscience, then I can make all sorts of theories that will stand, such as soft-tissue can't be preseved 65 million years by the iron in the tissue or God created many kinds of animals and man that reproduce after their own kind. Also I have a theory that I just made a good tactical move against BillyDean in a RHP chess game. 😏
It wasn't 'evolutionists' plural, it was a single person who came up with that theory. It will stand till someone refutes it in a journal with bioscience, not creationist bullshyte.
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBigoted Gobshyte
If one can make a theory and it stands until some one refutes in a jouranal with bioscience, then I can make all sorts of theories that will stand, such as soft-tissue can't be preseved 65 million years by the iron in the tissue or God created many kinds of animals and man that reproduce after their own kind. Also I have a theory that I just made a good tactical move against BillyDean in a RHP chess game. 😏
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindswell, fine. Let's see your publication then. Put your money where your mouth is.
If one can make a theory and it stands until some one refutes in a jouranal with bioscience, then I can make all sorts of theories that will stand, such as soft-tissue can't be preseved 65 million years by the iron in the tissue or God created many kinds of animals and man that reproduce after their own kind. Also I have a theory that I just made a good tactical move against BillyDean in a RHP chess game. 😏
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe iron expeiment was not conducted in real world situations and was only done for two years according to the paper. The presence of iron might explain how soft tissue can be preserved for hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years. I am not sure how it could be used to explain the preservation of soft tissue over millions of years.
well, fine. Let's see your publication then. Put your money where your mouth is.
- Researchers found red blood cell-like structures on eight separate fossils
- Fossils were in storage at Natural History Museum in London for 100 years
- Scientists say tissue could provide new insight into how dinosaurs lived
- They believe other old fossils may also contain undiscovered soft tissue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3117137/Blood-skin-cells-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones-Tissue-extracted-fossils-left-storage-century.html
Two Dinosaur Soft Tissue Predictions Confirmed!
1. Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for.
- CONFIRMED in JUNE 2015! The journal Nature Communications reported original tissue in six of eight dinosaur bones investigated, leading to the conclusion that "preservation is more common than preivously thought."
More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur: Consistent with the expectations of biblical creationists, according to Nat'l Geographic, there's yet another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels, connective tissue, and blood cell protein amino acid chains partially sequenced at Harvard University. This allegedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring previous claims by young-earth creationists due to the false evolutionary timescale which so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.
2. Original dinosaur and other soft tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil.
- CONFIRMED in April 2014!
The Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old!
Carbon-14 Found Everywhere It's Not Supposed To Be (even in dinosaur fossils): C-14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old.
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsActually, it's not a scientific theory until it has proven its explanatory powers through thousands of tests. When Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he offered a new explanation to replace explanations that had failed to account for the data. His explanation with small modifications and refinements has stood the test of time, even accounting for the mutations that produce creationist offspring from intelligent and well-educated parents.
If one can make a theory and it stands until some one refutes in a jouranal [sic] with bioscience, ...
You can hypothesize anything. A scientific hypothesis will relate to observable material realities, not ineffable speculations about spirits. Science is not shamanism, although it can sometimes account for the effectiveness of some shamanistic practices.
Originally posted by WulebgrWhen Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he offered a new explanation to replace explanations that had failed to account for the data.
Actually, it's not a scientific theory until it has proven its explanatory powers through thousands of tests. When Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he offered a new explanation to replace explanations that had failed to account for the data. His explanation with small modifications and refinements has stood the test of time, even accounting for ...[text shortened]... hamanism, although it can sometimes account for the effectiveness of some shamanistic practices.
Actually the ideas he poffered were not new: they'd been percolating among some for some time as they had run into brick walls trying to work with the then-existing models.
What is noteworthy, however, is how quickly the first volume sold out and how the alleged "test of time" is not what underpins its 'authority' (as though the theory steadily gained acceptance over time), but rather, it has been unchallenged and untested since that time by the majority of the scientific community.
Anyone who dares look behind the curtain is quickly relegated to the lunatic fringe.
And don't you dare ask the origin of the species to offer an explanation for the, um, origin of the species: that's simply not its focus!
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course pieces of his explanation had been percolating. But they had not been put together in the way that he did. Hence, "new" explanation is accurate.
[b]When Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he offered a new explanation to replace explanations that had failed to account for the data.
Actually the ideas he poffered were not new: they'd been percolating among some for some time as they had run into brick walls trying to work with the then-existing models.[/b]
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrMaybe you should inform sonhouse of his mistaken idea about a theory, a hypothesis and an explanation. 😏
Actually, it's not a scientific theory until it has proven its explanatory powers through thousands of tests. When Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he offered a new explanation to replace explanations that had failed to account for the data. His explanation with small modifications and refinements has stood the test of time, even accounting for ...[text shortened]... hamanism, although it can sometimes account for the effectiveness of some shamanistic practices.
16 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou YEC's have no idea first, how you make the US the laughing stock of the entire planet and second how negatively all your nonsense impacts real science. When literally thousands of asssholes try to refute real science, some of those who would have been destined to go into scientific fields will be converted to your twisted universe, which of course to you is a positive thing. The rest of the world laughs at you and your buddies.
Maybe you should inform sonhouse of his mistaken idea about a theory, a hypothesis and an explanation. 😏
We in the US are just saddened by all this YEC nonsense.
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are apparently too indoctrinated by evil propaganda to be able to see the errors of your evilution ways.
You YEC's have no idea first, how you make the US the laughing stock of the entire planet and second how negatively all your nonsense impacts real science. When literally thousands of asssholes try to refute real science, some of those who would have been destined to go into scientific fields will be converted to your twisted universe, which of course to yo ...[text shortened]... world laughs at you and your buddies.
We in the US are just saddened by all this YEC nonsense.
17 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrHe tried to pass that spelling as if it was his own invention but not even THAT was his. He has a paucity of original thought so he has no choice but to dig up pseudoscience creationist video's, thinking he has just scored a major victory.
To sum up, RJH's basic argument stems from the evidence that he cannot spell evolution.